Let’s have a Tea Party on Wall Street

It doesn’t matter if you consider yourself conservative, liberal or politically unattached, compare the Tea Party rallies of months past to the recent Occupy Wall Street-Washington-University of Iowa’s Green Park demonstrations and you’ll find the irony delicious.

Over the last few years, Americans dressed as Benjamin Franklin or other well-known red-blooded patriots have been joined at rallies and protests on the Mall in Washington and on Main Streets to yell about how they were going to “take our country back.” Fox News extolled the importance of these homegrown protests as Jon Stewart poked fun on the Daily Show calling them orchestrated political events.

In today’s we-can-yell-louder-than-you-can political environment, what goes around, comes around.

In the last few weeks, demonstrators dressed as zombies or mindless creatures have been joined by many others at rallies and protests around the nation to accuse “corporate America of stealing our country.” After waiting a few days to check with each other about whether zombie-palooza was newsworthy or not, many in the media are reporting about the significance of these organic demonstrations as right leaning pundits claim those on the left have manufactured these events to perpetuate a war between the classes.

Senator Chuck Grassley made this assessment of the Occupy rallies while at KCCI News on Thursday, “You don’t find a consistency in it that you normally would with a protest that’s going to be successful. So I assume that it’s a lot of unemployed young people looking for some dates.”

I could say the same about Congress – ba dum bump.

Senator Grassley who is quick to diminish left-handed speech and his colleagues on the other side of the aisle who dismiss those who support the right’s demagoguery need to take note. The Tea Party and Occupy protests shouldn’t be dismissed. Each says something about the simmering mood in modern America.

Our political system is broken. The majority of those elected in recent years hunker down under the strong-arm protection of the most partisan among them. Acknowledging the legitimacy of the other side and their point of view is considered sedition. Those with R’s dangling after their names seemingly hyperventilate every time they hear a person with a D designation speak and the D’s nearly stagger with rage when an R opens his mouth. Both sides are blind to the reality that the same fuel, the volatility of feeling helpless, powers the Tea Party and the Occupy movements alike.

I have never had the urge to throw on a tri-cornered hat or paint scars on my face and march off to yell and scream with a bunch of other hotheads. Don’t get me wrong, thanks in part to my daughter I have a renewed appreciation for the power of theater, I just like to take mine in a more traditional theatrical setting, not packaged as protest. Nor can it be said I haven’t been viewed as a hothead, I just feel silly in costumes.

Here’s the thing, the lovers of eighteenth century attire and horror make-up and their respective comrades are all looking for leaders. Leaders take more interest in moving the country forward than they do in moving their political power base forward. The funny thing about that is a leader who does the former almost always simultaneously does the latter. The majority of today’s political class do not have a clue how to lead and those who do haven’t the nerve to stand-up to the bullies in charge, regardless of party.

Senator Grassley makes one valid point about the protesters. Many of them are unemployed or underemployed. This has made them disenfranchised just as many of those who rallied on the Mall in front of Glenn Beck were.

Instead of disparaging those seeking to be heard, those in elected office need to give these throngs a voice by climbing out of the bunker and trying to collaborate to improve America’s situation.

Instead of electing those who parrot back protest chants disguised as a political platform, the electorate needs to send people to office who want to do the job instead of those who simply lust for power.

###

Graham Gillette can be reached at grahamgillette@gmail.com

This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register guest opinion .

Rand Paul’s Memorial Day Salute

There seems to be an incessant buzz in America these days caused by our collective carping about the game playing of elected officials.  I have contributed mightily to this noise and have fed it a fair amount through my writing for print media and in this space.  On the eve of the Memorial Day weekend, I am going to do something different and praise one politician for holding his ground and keeping his word.

As Congress scrambled to renew parts of the Patriot Act, freshman Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky took an unyielding stand to force a vote on three provisions of the Act he found particularly objectionable.  Paul filibustered for three days.  In the process, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid berated Paul and, in an outrageous display, even accused Paul of wanting to arm terrorists.

“He is fighting for an amendment to protect the right — not of average citizens, but of terrorists — to cover up their gun purchases,” Reid said.

That is a scurrilous statement for which Senator Reid should be ashamed.  The Republican Leader, Senator Mitch McConnell, was only slightly kinder to his fellow Republican, but Senator Paul did not back down.  In the end, Paul forced votes on his amendments and they all failed.

I have a very different view on many issues than does Senator Paul, but I share his concern about how the Patriot Act impinges individual freedom.  I recognize the threat posed by terrorists.  However, terrorists win a victory when a free society allows even small fissures in the foundation of liberty in fear of things that might happen.  Created in a noble effort to protect the American way, the Patriot Act simultaneously degrades it.

It would have been understandable for Senator Paul to acknowledge he was on the losing side of this battle and to quietly acquiesce.  He knew his amendments lacked majority support.  A simple  “no” vote would have been the easy way out and the leaders of his party might have even rewarded him for sitting on the sideline.  Senator Paul chose another path.  As a result, the Senate and, perhaps in a small way, the country is a little better for having heard a minority viewpoint too often silenced since 9/11.

As you put out your flag this Memorial Day to honor those who paid the ultimate price fighting for our freedom, remember one of the most valuable ideals they died to protect was the right of individual Americans to voice their opinions.  Senator Paul may not have represented the mainstream this week in the U.S. Senate, but preserving his right to speak is important to each and every one of us.

The Senate debate may not have been pretty and the substance of what was said there may only seem significant to a single blowhard with a blog, but America is the greatest nation on earth because we do not silence those who say unpopular things.

###

Graham Gillette can be reached at grahamgillette@gmail.com

This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register blog entry.

Don’t Serve Cheese at Your Next Tea Party

A common refrain heard at election rallies this year was government is out of control.  Often in angry tones, rally goers would point to the recent health care bill or corporate bailouts and say government must be stopped.  Never mind that many of the politicians playing to these crowds played loose with the facts, the theme sold and swept many new people into office.  But, before you dismiss the anti-government crowd entirely, you need consider government cheese.  Yep, government cheese.  That recurring comedic punch line is an excellent example of why the government, specifically the U.S. Department of Agriculture, gives these naysayers strong ground on which to stand.

In a front-page story this morning, the New York Times reports on Dairy Management, a $140 million marketing creation of the Department of Agriculture to get the American people to eat more cheese.  Dairy Management’s revenue comes largely from a government-mandated fee (I still call that a tax) and is supplemented by several additional million from the Department itself.  Through a series of confidential (yes, confidential) agreements, Dairy Management has induced companies like Domino’s Pizza and Taco Bell to stuff their products with cheese to get fat Americans to eat even more of the gelatinous goo.

The struggling pizza chain, Domino’s, is the benefactor of a $12 million all-expense-paid marketing campaign.  All Domino’s had to do was introduce a line of pizzas with 40% more cheese.  One slice of this pizza has two-thirds of a day’s maximum recommended saturated fat all while the Department is bending over backwards to tout its  $6.5 million Center for Nutritional Policy and Promotion effort to promote a healthy diet.  ($140 million to eat more cheese to $6.5 million to eat healthier, hmmmmm?)

Dairy Management cooed in one report about how its agreement with Taco Bell had created a new quesadilla that used eight times more cheese than any other of its menu items.  The steak quesadilla with cheddar, pepper jack mozzarella and a creamy sauce (everybody knows three kinds of cheese is best enjoyed with a creamy sauce) is a win for Dairy Management as it rings in with more than three-quarters of the daily-recommended level of both saturated fat and sodium.  (Whoo-hoo, way to go, government!)

Dairy Management is one example of a government program started with good intentions that has run amuck.  During the Depression, the Agriculture Department bought the cheese industry’s excess product and gave it to those in need, helping to save family farms and feed people in difficult times.  The Depression ended, but the program has continued to grow.  By 1983, the government had a stockpile of $4 billion in cheese stored in Missouri caves.  (I am not making that up!)  Today, Dairy Management is focused on trying to get Americans to eat even more of the stuff, even though our consumption has skyrocketed from over ten pounds a year in the 1970’s to 33 pounds a year today.   Cheese is the largest source of saturated fat adding to Americans’ waistlines, clogged arteries and overall fine physiques.  And, Dairy Management is a bloated example of why government may just be out of control.

There is something wrong with a government that colludes with an industry to increase the sales of a product that its people do not need and is actually contributing to obesity and its related health problems.  Dairy Management spent $136 million domestically last year and an additional $5.6 million of Department money to promote dairy sales overseas.  Next time you go to a Tea Party, you might want to ask your host to hold the cheese, lest you want to be seen as a tool of the run-away government you decry.

(In the interest of self-disclosure, the writer of this piece loves cheese and he firmly believes he would even if the government wasn’t marketing it to him.)

###

(Graham Gillette can be reached at grahamgillette@gmail.com)

This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register blog entry.

Sun Still Rising on America

With the exception of the disappointing results on judicial retention, I am pleased with yesterday’s election.  Many of the candidates I wanted to win didn’t, but the process worked and that is good.  Fortunately, the nasty fringe of the Tea Party was turned back in many key races.  We now have an opportunity to return civility to our electoral process, but that has to start today and with us.

First, some thoughts on judicial retention.  Iowans took a step backward with this decision.  It is a good thing Justices are on the ballot every eight years.  The people should have the ability to remove those unfit for office.  However, these members of the Supreme Court were not tossed out because they were unfit.  They made a ruling based on our Constitution and legal precedent that made people nervous.  If Iowans did not like the ruling, they should amend the Constitution and/or change the law.  Firing the legal equivalent of a sporting event’s referee because some don’t like the call is silly.  Judges should not be threatened to rule based on public pressure.  We have a legislative and executive branch to react to the public.  The judicial branch is to be an unbiased arbitrator.

The three Justices are out, but I am hopeful Iowans have vented their frustration and will not take this further by upending what is a good process for selecting an independent judiciary.  Governor-elect Terry Branstad has a point – the commission that recommends candidates to the Governor for selection became controlled by a partisan group of Democrats under Governor Chet Culver.  For that body to work, it has to be balanced.  It is no place for one-sided politics.  Hopefully, our new Governor will return that balance and not work to scrap what has been a national model for how judicial appointment should work.

The Republican Party took control of Congress.  John Boehner will be Speaker.  This could be a good thing.  Don’t get me wrong, I am no Boehner fan, but he has an opportunity to lead and I am pulling for him.  The negative personal attacks that have infested U.S. politics must come to an end.  We can disagree, but to move forward as a nation, civility must return to our political debate.  Speaker designee Boehner has the chance to make the first step.  He does not have to compromise his beliefs and shouldn’t.  Hopefully, he will see the best way to forward his agenda is to treat those who oppose him as equals and, in doing so, find a way to end the gridlock plaguing Washington, for it holds our national future hostage.

In 2008, TV commentator Chris Matthews was ridiculed for saying a speech by candidate Barack Obama had made a “thrill run up his leg.”  Semantics aside, I understood what he meant.  Obama had moved him.  Senator-elect and Tea Party favorite Marco Rubio from Florida has a similar ability to inspire people with words.  His victory speech was the best of the night.  He spoke of what motivated him and of how our success lies in our shared belief for a better country.  I look forward to what he may bring to the Senate.

You may be calling me naïve.  However, the only way for the greatest nation in the world to continue to be great is for us to find a way to consensus.  Demonizing those who disagree with us may be a good way to win an election, but it is no way to build the country we want for the next generation.  The change starts, again, today.

(Graham Gillette can be reached at grahamgillette@gmail.com)

Republicans and Democrats Both Miss the Point

Timing is everything.  The election is Tuesday and it could not come at a better time for Republicans who have run a campaign based on convincing people the country is headed in the wrong direction and the only way to set things right is to toss Democrats aside.  It appears as though the tactic has worked well.  Many Republicans will be swept into office.  The interesting thing is that much of the data does not support the claims made by the GOP.

Who will Get Burned?

Yesterday, Iowa Budget Director Richard Oshloprojected that the state’s budget will end the fiscal year in June with $300 million dollarsmore than previously projected.  If you trust the Culver Administration, this means Iowa will have a more than $900 million surplus.  Even most experts who discount this rosy political projection admit the state appears to have turned a corner.  Listen to the Terry Branstad folks and you might think the state will plunge into economic oblivion if Chet Culver wins reelection.

This morning, the third quarter economic numbers were released showing the GDP improved at a faster rate than it had last quarter.  This nearly met or exceeded many economists’ predictions.  Don’t get me wrong, there are too many people out of work and there is much to be done before we will be able to say our economy is healthy.  But, the political rhetoric of the season spun a tale based less on facts like these and more on scare tactics.

The election will be over Tuesday and the torch of leadership may change hands.  The question for those who will lead is whether will they light the way to the future, use it to flame their opponents or get burned themselves.

Many new people will take office in the days and weeks to come.  Regardless of their party affiliation, the reality these officials will face and the problems with which they must deal are different than what most of them talked about out on the stump.  Moreover, most every poll taken in recent weeks does not indicate voters support one party platform over another.  In fact, it shows they do not think highly of either.  As the latest Selzer/Bloomberg poll shows, what voters want more than anything else is for their elected officials to work together and to seek compromise and consensus.

Before the newly sworn in start passing laws to overturn the ones passed by those who came before them, they would be wise to take an honest pulse of the people they were elected to lead.  Tuesday’s election results will not be a mandate on policy, but a message that voters want more cooperation across the party aisle and less bickering.  After the 2010 campaign slugfest, I am not too convinced many are interested in or capable of heeding this call.

###

(Graham Gillette can be reached at grahamgillette@gmail.com)

This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register blog entry.

Tell the Truth Terry? Culver Misses Again.

Governor Chet Culver had an excellent opportunity to score a few points in the fourth quarter of his lopsided election match-up with former Governor Terry Branstad.  Culver needs it – Branstad is trouncing him in the polls.  As is Culver’s custom, he squandered what should have been an excellent play.

Today was the day Culver and State Treasurer Michael Fitzgerald picked to announce the outcome of the budget for the 2010 fiscal year.  They had good news.  According to the Governor and the Treasurer, the State of Iowa ended a very difficult year with a $335 million surplus.  I am not going to wade into the validity of this number.  Others will debate this for weeks.  Let’s examine how the Culver folks decided to make the announcement.

Most polls, political experts and fifth graders studying social studies will tell you one of Culver’s great deficiencies lies in how voters’ view him as a leader.  This was a moment for Culver to show he was in charge, well versed in the complexities of government budgeting and prove to Iowans their Governor had a firm grasp on the reins of government.  He could anticipate that Branstad would argue about his numbers, but Culver has the advantage of incumbency which gives him the ability to stand with Iowa’s veteran Treasurer, put political squabbling aside and say Iowa is not as bad off as his opponent says it is.

Culver needed to be in charge, more chief executive than politician.  He needed to be seen as the Governor.  Seriousness, honesty and statesmanship should have exuded from his official podium.  He chose instead to take this announcement out of the Governor’s office to the steps of the Capitol, stand behind a placard with a fuzzy black and white photo of Branstad emblazoned with the words “Tell the Truth, Terry” and whine about Branstad.  He traded his gubernatorial moment for one that resembled a mudslinging festival – it kind of sounded like a Tea Party rally for Democrats.

Even the elementary social studies students might have been able to advise the Governor the last thing you want to do is take your positive moment and turn it into one focused on your opponent.  They probably would have also let the Governor know that, from a distance, the comma on his sign was hard to see, turning a request for Branstad to tell the truth into something Branstad might like people to call him, Tell the truth Terry.

Interestingly, the Branstad camp seemed to be taken a bit by surprise by Culver and Fitzgerald’s budget numbers.  The Branstad campaign spit out a media release and sputtered to reporters’ calls with a peculiar “Tell Iowa property owners that the budget is balanced, when today they are on the hook for the largest increase in school property taxes in 30 years” and “tell the laid-off teachers that his budget is balanced.”  Is Branstad saying it doesn’t matter the budget is balanced because property taxes increased?  Instead of sticking with their manta that the state is in debt and it needs to cut spending, they went with it doesn’t matter the budget is balanced and the state should have spent more on teacher salaries.  Odd.

Culver could have told Iowans the state has money in the bank and things may be looking up after all, but he opted to play political games instead.  I would count today as an opportunity lost for both campaigns, which means Branstad will go to bed tonight feeling fairly safe his 19 point lead remains unchanged.

(Contact Graham Gillette at grahamgillette@gmail.com)

This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register blog entry.

Vander Plaats’ Quiet Period to End

Perennial gubernatorial candidate Bob Vander Plaats is holding a press conference at 10:30 a.m. tomorrow at the State Capitol. Vander Plaats has been mulling an independent run since losing to Terry Branstad in the primary. Branstad and Vander Plaats have tried to come to some agreement, but tomorrow’s affair gives this observer the impression the bridge to reconciliation could not be built.

Vander Plaats could surprise me, but the fact he made the announcement independent of the Branstad camp makes me think he is about to stick it to the former governor one more time. Vander Plaats may or may not announce his candidacy tomorrow, but I am guessing he is about to vent some conservative frustration about the Republican nominee while he still has the semblance of a podium at which to stand. If Vander Plaats runs, he will be a thorn in Branstad’s side and one can argue Vander Plaats will mostly help Chet Culver by entering the fray. However, I still see the race as Branstad’s to lose even with a third party candidate on the ballot.

Conservatives like Vander Plaats are turning up the heat on two issues these days, immigration and marriage. Recent federal court rulings have angered them, making it likely these issues will drive much of the forthcoming election cycle. Last week a federal judge temporarily blocked key parts of Arizona’s new immigration law and yesterday a federal judge struck down California’s voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage. It is hard to imagine Vander Plaats walking away with these issues boiling on the front burner of the right wing stove top. He’ll want to stay in that kitchen, trust me. Tomorrow we will find out how he plans to do so.

This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register blog entry.

Branstad and Vander Plaats as Bedfellows may Mean Neither Sleep Well

I was drafting a blog post yesterday about how perennial Iowa gubernatorial candidate and conservative darling Bob Vander Plaats had gone oddly silent. I had been hearing some rumors he was close to making a deal to endorse Terry Branstad, his rival for the Republican nomination. I stopped writing and was going to chase the gossip. Jason Hancock at the Iowa Independent beat me to it.

It smells like there is a deal in the works.

The Background

I predicted shortly after the polls opened on primary election day that should Vander Plaats get 40% or more of the vote, he would seriously consider continuing his campaign as an independent. He met that threshold and has been publicly and not-so-publicly considering a run since. After challenging nominee Terry Branstad’s choice for a running mate, Kim Reynolds, at convention and losing with numbers eerily similar to what he received in the primary, Vander Plaats has been quiet. Too quiet, for a guy who is about to re-re-re-re-launch a campaign.

The Score

Should they reach a deal, Branstad gets many of the conservatives off his back and Vander Plaats gets to say he stared at the big, bad nominee and made him blink first. In the post I was drafting yesterday, I speculated about how odd it was that Branstad was still campaigning to the right. He has talked about social issues such as immigration and same-sex marriage, when I would think he would be looking to issues that attract the broader general election voters. I mused it was like Branstad couldn’t stop thinking about Vander Plaats. After talking to Hancock and reading his Iowa Independent story, I now see Branstad couldn’t. A deal was in the works. He is trying to appease Vander Plaats and team by saying things they want to hear.

My Take

This is still Branstad’s race to lose. Chet Culver is facing incredibly stiff odds. Branstad does not need the far right, but he is the consummate politician, unwilling to leave much to chance. If he can get a few more on the right to support him, he has to entice fewer of those in the middle come November. The good news for Branstad is that in any other year he might alienate crucial middle of the road voters with this move, but with such a weak opponent there is less to worry about. The downside is Branstad will continue to pay the Vander Plaats’ bill after the election when he is trying to govern. Getting in bed with some social conservatives may make for a few tough nights’ sleep over the next four years.

As for Vander Plaats, he better make sure whatever job, concession or promises he is made by the Branstad folks are well-spelled out and made public. Promises made behind the closed doors of a campaign office often die quick and silent deaths.

This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register blog entry.

Vander Plaats is in this Thing

Today, the Iowa Independent reports that the Energizer bunny of Iowa gubernatorial politics, Bob Vander Plaats, is mulling an independent bid for the office.

Just because I am actually keeping score; on Primary Day while Iowans were still voting, a political observer said this, “If Vander Plaats gets close to 40% of the vote in today’s race, he will seriously consider an independent run for the office.” Vander Plaats did get 40% and is making moves like he will run. One point for me. (Full text of the blog where I said this is here http://bit.ly/itoldu)

Let me reiterate what I said that day, in many ways, the Vander Plaats folks would prefer a Culver victory over one for Branstad. They do not like Culver, but Branstad’s victory in November would limit options for them in years to come – like who gets to be Party chair, who controls Party resources and who is in charge of the messaging carried and heard by conservatives. The heart of the battle in Iowa is not about winning an office, but for who controls the Republican/conservative/Tea Party cause. Vander Plaats is not ready to go into that good night and Branstad puts a significant dent into the aspirations of many who support Vander Plaats.

If Vander Plaats walks away, he is a three time loser. If runs as a independent candidate and Branstad wins, Vander Plaats gets to call himself a martyr for the cause. If he runs and Culver wins, Vander Plaats supporters will say that the wrong guy won in June and will continue to inveigle their way into the Party apparatus. Stay tuned Iowans; the messy political games have just begun.

This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register blog entry.

Vander Plaats may not be done, Conlin may be on a trip to nowhere

I love Election Day, but it is well known that I am a nerd. I was the 9th person to vote at my precinct. Like any election, today’s primary brings to close a season of posturing. There will be winners and there will be losers. Some candidates will try to claim they have a mandate and others will retreat to consider their next move.

This brings us to Bob Vander Plaats, the Republican Primary for Governor and my first prediction. If Vander Plaats gets close to 40% of the vote in today’s race, he will seriously consider an independent run for the office.

In many ways, the Vander Plaats folks would prefer a Culver victory over one for Branstad. They do not like Culver, but Branstad’s victory in November would limit options for them in years to come. The heart of the battle in Iowa is not about winning an office, but for who controls of the Republican/conservative/Tea Party cause. Vander Plaats is not ready to go into that good night and Branstad puts a significant dent into the aspirations of many who support Vander Plaats.

The most interesting field on this year’s ballot is the Republican primary to select a challenger for Leonard Boswell. My prediction number two is that Brad Zaun will do better than many expect. It may not be enough for him to snatch victory tonight without going to convention, but Zaun will be in a strong position. I cannot say if he will be able to garner the votes he needs to win at convention, but I give Zaun the edge in a convention match-up. He is a bulldog when it comes grassroots, one-on-one campaigning. Dave Funk has impressed many in this campaign and he has won the right to play a significant role in Party activities going forward, but this will not be his race. Jim Gibbons may be the victor in the end. He has raised a ton of money and played the game pretty well. He lacks the fire many conservatives would like to see in 2010, but do not count him out yet.

The Democratic race to challenge Chuck Grassley is unremarkable. Roxanne Conlin will prevail today, but she is going to lose to Grassley in November unless she significantly ups her game. She is capable of doing so, but her campaign is going to have to significantly improve from the snoozefest that was her primary effort.

That’s it for now. Go vote today and let the general election fun begin!

This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register blog entry.

Sticks and Stones and Names may Break more than Bones

I am listening to President Obama speak in Ottumwa and reflecting on comments by those who protested his visit a short distance a way yesterday. I firmly believe freedom of speech is at the very heart of what makes our country great. But, it is rarely easy to witness rancor. I wonder if the current political environment is dulling our senses and creating a permanent divide that will make it hard to come together to preserve and defend the American Dream for the next generation.

Former Iowa Congressman Jim Leach is now Chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities. In November, Chairman Leach launched a national tour, Civility in a Fractured Society, and he will soon bring it to Iowa. He has something important to say to both those inside the hall where the President is speaking and those standing outside in protest. Our differences of opinion are not trivial, but the need for us to find our patriotic common ground is greater.

Chairman Jim Leach said recently, “Civilization requires civility. Words matter. Polarizing attitudes can jeopardize social cohesion.”

We are entering the heat of the 2010 political campaign season making timely this message of civility. In a sweltering Independence Hall some 234 years ago, the Founders did not always agree. Their supporters often engaged in loud and even rancorous debates. The arguments were painful and passions ran high. In the end, they found a way to work together and forge a brighter future for those who would follow. I am grateful for that and hope many years from now, those who follow us will feel a similar sense of gratitude for our ability to unite in uncertain times.

I look forward to Chairman Leach’s tour and wish him well. I am pleased the President brought his message to Iowa and, I am grateful for those who find a way to passionately fight for what they believe without obliterating civil discourse. There are many problems to be solved and we will only be able to do so if we put our collective shoulder to the wheel.

This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register blog entry.